Chamber and committees

Before the stage 3 proceedings are fully under way, I will echo Jamie Greene. We have supported the Government’s attempts to control fireworks. There is a consensus on that—[Interruption.] However, we must be allowed to scrutinise the bill at stage 3 without heckling from the minister. Perhaps you want to intervene on me.

We are doing our job. If we ask the public whether they want more control over fireworks, of course they will agree but, in their minds, they want to halt the misuse of fireworks. They might not be thinking of themselves sitting in their back gardens in November and setting off fireworks.

However, the bill is quite clear, and that is an important point. The provision for the 57 days on which people are permitted to use a firework can stand alone without a licensing scheme. The offences can stand alone. We do not need a licensing scheme in order to create a criminal offence or a breach of the regulations.

The question that Katy Clark rightly put is whether a licensing scheme actually adds anything to the type of restrictions that the public want. It is legitimate to ask what happens if people do not apply for a licence under the bill but go somewhere else to get the fireworks. The industry—

I thank the minister for that comprehensive reply. I reflected on what the minister said at stage 2—I read the Official Report and adjusted my amendment to see whether the minister might accept a different formulation—but, surely, it is quite a simple matter. If a request is put before a local authority, the local authority can still say no. It is just a request; it does not deny the local authority any powers that it already has. I really do not understand why ministers have such difficulties with it.

I will acknowledge that—if, after the training course, people are able remember the 57 days of Diwali, Vaisakhi, Chinese new year and so on. It will be an offence to set off fireworks outside those 57 days. I was drawing attention to the oddness in that, which is that anyone could take advantage of the provision and lawfully set off fireworks in their back garden on any of those 57 days. They would not have to be celebrating one of those events. That seems to be odd, because it would be an offence to do so outwith the 57 days. That part of the bill could unravel.

I seek to withdraw amendment 79.

Amendment 79, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 23—Restriction on days of use of fireworks

Amendment 80 not moved.

Amendment 81 moved—[Pauline McNeill].

Because we do have that.

I have no objection to that, but it has spoken publicly about not answering phone calls on rest days, for example. As with most jobs, there is a lot of stuff that you are not required to do but you do it—it is that goodwill side of things. I do not mind if what you are asking for is written clarification of the new range of actions that it might take.

I agree with the points that have been made so far. As Russell Findlay has said, there is a slightly different perspective from Police Scotland than there is from the Scottish Police Federation. It is important that we establish why. One thing is clear: higher numbers of officers than usual are leaving the police service. Why is that the case?

From what I have read before, the statement in the federation letter that police officers feel “undervalued” came as no great surprise to me. For the life of me, I cannot understand why police officers were not given priority for vaccination during the pandemic, for example. Obviously, that was a matter for the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation but, in reality, I felt that no one was really standing up for police officers.

As we in this committee have been examining, police officers are members of the one profession that cannot walk away from problems, whether they are dealing with 101 calls, mental health issues or crime, and we know that a lot of the calls that police officers deal with are not directly related to crime. That has to be recognised in some way, but it is the loss of experience that concerns me most.

I have looked at the breakdown over the ranks and it is pretty spread across them. There is a sense of urgency about the matter because, if the numbers that we have been given are correct and we lose that level of experience at all those grades, no level of recruitment will compensate for it. The service is already under pressure, so there are service implications that we need to discuss with the Government. The situation must be related to pay and conditions.

As politicians, we have to try to do the right thing. We need to try to retain some of those officers. The federation says that the change to pensions is minor and that police officers could always leave after 30 or 25 years’ service so the change is not the reason why they are leaving. If that is correct, there is a duty on the Government to make some inroads into pay and conditions that would persuade some of those officers to stay, because, if they do not stay, we will have real service issues in the police.

Do you mean the ranks of those who are planning to retire?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that any real-terms cuts in its budget may impact most on the courts and prosecution service. (S6O-01267)

Reports suggest that the courts and the prosecution service will bear the brunt of public sector job cuts after the announcement of a real-terms budget cut that the cabinet secretary previously mentioned. That is despite the fact that the justice system is already struggling to deal with the effects of the pandemic.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that the backlog involves 40,000-plus cases and that it affects victims, in particular. Allan Simpson, the national officer for the FDA trade union, which represents staff at the Crown Office, has said that

“There is no fat to cut”

and that

“Staff are already working at maximum capacity”.

I believe that the cabinet secretary is on record as saying that we may lose up to 17,000 full-time jobs. How many jobs does she expect to lose in the justice sector with cuts of this level?

Scotland must have the highest standards of welfare and safety of persons who are detained in prisons and other facilities. As has been said, Scotland has an unacceptably high number of deaths in custody.

I welcome some of the commitments to improve the system, particularly by allowing families to flag up any serious concerns that they have about their family members’ physical health. It was mentioned in the statement that mental health and suicidality are already flagged up, but I know of cases in which families have raised concerns about family members who are in prison and are in serious distress, and those concerns have not always been acted on with the right level of urgency. I want to be clear that that will be included when we look at setting up new systems. I also seek the cabinet secretary’s assurance that families will be able to properly record welfare concerns.

I also want to ask about the pillars referred to in the statement. I would have thought that timely answers and timely information about the circumstances of a death in custody would have been an important principle to guide us in a new system. The independent report recommended “unfettered access” to information in the event of a death in custody, and I believe that the Government is committed to that. However, I will continue to ask what that will amount to. Will it ensure that families will be given access to information as the information unfolds? I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that one of the main purposes of changing the system is to give families full confidence in any new process that will correct the mistakes of the past. Families feel that information has been kept from them and that it takes far too long to get answers about deaths in custody.